Letter: Writer's plan a good start for Social Security

I found myself mostly in agreement with a recent writer's solution to Social Security. Raising the retirement age from 67 to 70 for the purpose of receiving your full Social Security benefit makes sense given the increasing longevity of our society.

Raising the income level to $130,000 seems to make sense at first glance, but is more complicated. People should be aware Social Security benefits are geared toward rewarding the lower wage earner rather than the higher wage earner. At current rates, a wage earner who averages $50,000 a year will pay $217,000 into the system (including employer match) A $100,000 wage earner will pay double that, but will only receive about 38 percent more in annual benefits. Is it fair to ask them to carry a heavier burden?

Also more complicated is his solution to the current low rates of return of government bonds, which our Social Security surplus is supposedly earning. His idea of investing in a mutual fund with 25 years minimum experience and an average rate of return of 10 percent is a little more involved. Using the S&P 500 total return index, you have to go back all the way to 2004 to find a 10-year rolling average annual return of 10 percent or greater (1995-2004). In fact, from 2000 through 2013 the average annual return of the S&P500 was a mere 5.5 percent.

There are no guarantees the market will post positive returns in any given year.

The real problem is that the government has spent all the money. Making future Social Security contributions off limits for any purpose other than paying eligible beneficiaries is the first step to fixing Social Security.

Lane Ginsberg

Greenville

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

Letter: Writer's plan a good start for Social Security

I found myself mostly in agreement with a recent writer's solution to Social Security. Raising the retirement age from 67 to 70 for the purpose of receiving your full Social Security benefit makes